Grid Leadership vs LEAD

During the three day program at Pegasus, the LEAD - Leadership Effectiveness and Adaptability, instrument was administered. The LEAD Self instrument is a pen and paper instrument in which respondents are presented with 12 situations, each with four alternative answers. Of the four alternative answers to each situation, there is one answer for each of the four leadership styles:
1. telling/directing style (high task/low relationship),
2. selling/coaching (high task/high relationship),
3. participating/supporting (low task/high relationship), and
4. delegating (low task/low relationship).

The LEAD Self instrument developed at the Center for Leadership Studies in 1979.

The participants earlier had gone through the Grid Leadership module. After the instrument was administered it was found that most of the participants had a high score on Coaching (High Task High Relationship) and Supporting (Low task and High Relationship) and almost zero on the Delegating (low Task Low relationship)

The facilitator explained that these scores indicate how adaptable you are as a leader based on the situation. He further clarified that there is no one style that is best among the four instead it is the leader's ability to choose the right style based on situation that determines his effectiveness. He asked the participants to map their sub-ordinates into the four quadrants and then compare them with their scores. It was clear that most participants were operating predominantly from the two quadrants mentioned above and were not directing and delegating enough.

At this point one of the participants raised a point, which is very interesting. The participant said that earlier in another Leadership Training, the facilitator mentioned that a Leader should operate from High Task High Relationship quadrant - 9,9 or atleasst balance at 5,5 and the LEAD model is contradicting with that.

At this point I realized what might have happened and could relate to the participant. In one training the facilitator says this is the best model and in another one it is contradicted, who should the participant believe. In fact I also went through similar experience earlier. This situation arose because the whole program was not fully integrated and the modules are loosely fitted together.

The Facilitator from Pegasus, may be due to time constraint or any other reason, carefully avoided going into the depths of the question - How come LEAD is contradicting with Grid. The facilitator just mntioned that both are different and LEAD indicates the preferred method.

But to be precise, according to my understanding, LEAD is built from where Grid leadership was left. Grid tried to bring out the people element part of the Manager's job and balance Manager's focus between Task and Job, which is correct. On the other hand LEAD tried to take it further by adding the Situation, the third dimension to the Leadership Style.

Therefore there is nothing wrong with GRID and there is no great difference between what Grid says and LEAD says, only difference is that Grid is just two dimensional while LEAD is three dimensional. LEAD brings in the dimension of Subordinate and recommends that the Leader adapts his style based on subordinate's current state of ability and willingness.

To summarize LEAD, the ideal style that a Leader should choose is:

1. Directive - When the subordinate is new, ability is low and willlingness is high
2. Coaching - When the subordinate is reasonably capable and needs motivation as willingness beccomes low due to the initial hurdles
3. Supporting - When the subordinate is capable but needs a pat on the back regularly
4. Delegating - When the subordinate is highly capable and is self motivated and mature to take care of things on his own.

If the Leader uses any of the style wrongly then there is a great chance that the subordinate will get frustrated andd may leave.

The above points can be very well used in a Training program for Team Leaders and Managers on how to Lead to Teams

For further details write to me or call me on 9885907580

A Wonderful experience at Pegasus, Gauribidanur

Just back from the 3-day Outbound Learning Program at Pegasus. There were 14 other Project Managers along with me and I was the co-ordinator.

Some key points for those who are interested in knowing how useful this experience has been:

1. Right from the beginning I have been a strong believer of experiential learning and this 3-day trip reinforced that belief

2. Value for Money: Though I don't know the exact amount of money spent, it was value for money. As a Training Consultant many times I had seen that companies get concerned about the budget but it is really worth it.

3. Faculty: My previous interaction with military personnel had been very limited and the only impression I had about them is that they are highly disciplined. But after seeing what Col. Gowri Sanker achieved at Sierra, I was very impressed. At Pegasus too, two of the three facilitators were from the Armed Forces. My impression about them is that they are highly disciplined and have lots of experience in handling people, very good facilitators, though I felt that their body of knowledge is slightly limited but it never came in the way of learning.

4. Participants: It's the participants who make the difference. How open are you to show what you are without restraining to do only that others want to see? The openness of the participants and their readiness to risk failure and take feedback is a critical factor. All the 14 others who were there with me were extremely open and did what they would do everyday. The state of mind of different participants can be categorised into:

1. I am very good, I'm already implementing what I learnt earlier. I face certain issues because others are not right and they may not be implementing what they have learnt.

2. I think I'm OK but I need to know how I make others also good. I have questions for which I will try to get answers from this program

3. I don't think I'm doing the right things but I am able to manage things as I'm good at my work. What I would do is, I will sit silently and then try to learn as much as possible

4. I have learnt lot of things but I need to revisit everything to reinforce. My concern is more about others and I hope they would learn what I learnt earlier

and mine was

5. I have never been with a group like this and I'm going as a participant, what should I be doing - Should I give chance to others, Should I act naturally and check where do I stand as an individual, should I help others. May be I would be myself and see what happens and make a note of where I need to work upon and also utilize this opportunity to understand how powerful the experiential learning process would be, what's the business model, is it sustainable and finally is there something that can be further improvised.

Overall it was a fantastic experience. Some of the activities that we went through include - Dynamic Obstacle course, Rappelling, raft building etc. Everyone participated, enjoyed and learnt a lot about themselves and the kind of challenges they may face if they have strong team members

One thing is very clear - each individual is unique and there is no single solution for development, instead put the individual in a situation and allow himself to experience where does he stand and possible learn from others. Follow up is the critical thing and over the next month I'm going to work on this. I'm very excited as this would be very good project in the Leadership Development domain. I would even look at the whole thing from the ROI point of view and note down the findings in this blog.

Happy Last Year

A very Happy and Prosperous New Year for everyone. 2006 has surely been a great eventful year but I'm expecting 2007 to be much more.

Last year had been a year of putting plans to implementation and not resting on the achievements. I started 2006 with a promotion, which was like a reward for my patient three year stint at Middle Earth, and ended the year with admission to ISB in hand.

What a Year it has been, so many things happened for me personally. This year saw me studying more than ever and working extremely hard. All the things that I took up tested me thoroughly, never earlier I felt that the amount of anxiety.

I also have conducted about 35+ Team building workshops in 2006. I was also anchoring an extremely beneficial intervention - conducting development centres. As a part of this exercise we have done Competency Mapping and conducted a three day Development Centre. It was really a very good experience.

2006 was a year of reward.
1. I got a promotion, my salary went up twice totalling to a 30% increase in one year,

2. I got an opportunity to be a part of few very interesting assignments - Performance Management System Automation, Training thorugh Learning Projects, Development Centres, Team Energizer*, Campus recruitement at Nalgonda etc,

3. I took my GMAT and scored 690,6.0, applied to ISB, got selected to ISB in Round one,

4. Met so many good people this year, both at work and outside work,

5. Read so many books - fiction, non-fiction and Management

6. My dream and my passion got refreshed

It was indeed a very happy last year 2006 and I'm sure that the foundations that were laid in 2006 would make 2007 a great year. I just pray god to guide me in doing the right things, show me the right path and give me the guts to take and follow that path.
I remain